Your statement might be true (I have no stats in support or defence) but I'd argue that's a low-quality solution. You end up with a system designed to punish some people some of the time in order to get compliance. It encourages a system of traps for citizens. It encourages police to set up radar traps instead of using more or better signage. I'm really not interested in that sort of law enforcement.

There are tonnes of reasons it's pscyhologically negative. Particularly, young men like to push the boundaries of the world, so we end up with a system that doesn't consistently enforce the boundaries, but levies large penalties. This is the sort of trick you might want to use in prison, but on the roads?

This article is really bad. The Super Tucano is *not* a WWII-era plane, and it could never, ever fill the role of supersonic interceptor. The Super Tucano is a great airplane, although not modern at all. You wouldn't send your race-car driver to the race in an out of date car. It would be just as stupid to send pilots into war in a Super Tucano.

What you're complaining about is that the growth isn't linear. But all of the improvements you're pointed out have seemed "smaller" than the last. Imagine if we could get the kind of improvement SNES had over NES again. But that sort of thing just isn't possible in modern games; the required complexity of the art grows way faster than the required complexity of the hardware.

The lies listed in this article are all focused on doing unnecessary cleanup. Real life isn't full of down-time where we can polish everything perfectly. Anywhere you go where there are experienced programmers, you will see they avoid issues by not over-extending themselves. Don't tell yourself your code will be clean if you want it to be fast, or you want to develop it quickly. Don't tell yourself you'll fix it later if you honestly don't NEED to fix it later.

I get annoyed by programmers who get stuck in the weeds. Solve it, and move on.

The group was 47/31 female to men, so guessing "female" would be a 59% success strategy, so blind guess does not have 50% chance of being right, however you're still right on the main point, I think. To rephrase their finding, something like 30% of twitter posts are markedly masculine or feminine. I can't think of any way to use that information practically.

The world has a plethora of people with skills. I can hire 50 coders before lunch who are skilled enough to work on my enterprise app, but not to design it. I'm sure MBA's are the same.

In my opinion, the most intelligent people I know are those that have successfully mastered multiple skills at professional levels, who concern themselves with knowledge at all levels from the big picture to the small details. These are the type of people who are constantly ahead of everyone else. These are the people that understand statistical bias, sample size, leading questions, Rayleigh scattering, and are confident and interesting speakers. This is where (I think) you'll find the best CEOs.

I guess I'm saying, there are lots of people smart enough to get degrees... less who can run huge companies well.

I also really like the term "myopia" you've used to describe the current state of business.

Producing goods and improving life are cooperative tasks, that are best served with long term planning for global maxima. Modern corporations make that approach impossible because they actively compete. The rationale for a competing agent is totally different from a cooperative one. Competing agents need to think more carefully about the near future, and less carefully about the long term future. Competing agents have incentive to chase local maxima instead of global maxima. Etc.

I do think that movie had a good solid scientific background, except for the part where the paradoxes started to affect the character's health. I don't see any evidence to the contrary, but its kind of an odd leap to make.